I have a question about estate planning and what is possible....

Is it possible for an extremely wealthy person to formulate a complex estate plan, leaving instructions to take place spanning over a decade after his death? For instance, the will is read, no one is allowed to fight about who gets what, or no one gets anything. Then, ten years after his death a new part of the will is to be disclosed to the family that to get their "real" inheritances they must meet certain parameters. And, the family wouldn't have even known that there was a second part or more money in existence.

Is this possible? If so, how would a lawyer explain to the family that the original will was only part of his wishes?

re: I have a question about estate planning and what is possible....(Posted by Poodlebrain on 11/21/12 at 3:40 am to lsu480)

Most very wealthy people are very concerned with controlling how their assets are disposed of and utilized even after they are dead. You can create trusts that accumulate income for a period of time until some specific conditions are met at which time the trust begins making distributions to one or more beneficiaries. I don't know whether you can hide the conditions required for distributions to begin from the potential beneficiaries.

re: I have a question about estate planning and what is possible....(Posted by rmc on 11/21/12 at 7:18 am to Poodlebrain)

quote: I don't know whether you can hide the conditions required for distributions to begin from the potential beneficiaries.

I don't see how this would be possible. A trust is the first thing that came to mind, but the attempt to hide the 'real' inheritance is probably not possible unless you gave (donate) all of the assets to your friend, who you hope outlives you for 10 years at least, and agrees to disburse it according to whatever schedule you have setup. I don't believe you could have anything drawn up legally to this effect -- its a vulgar substitution. Louisiana prohibits it, and I think most other states do too. Beneficiaries of trust, under most trust agreements and most state trust laws, have rights which would keep anything hid from them.

re: I have a question about estate planning and what is possible....(Posted by rmc on 11/21/12 at 7:23 am to lsu480)

quote: For instance, the will is read, no one is allowed to fight about who gets what, or no one gets anything.

I'm not sure that wills are 'read' like most TV shows depict. In Louisiana there is no requirement, as I suspect there isn't in most states.

The second matter -- not fighting or no one gets anything -- would be called an in terrorem clause. It's meant to put fear into someone who may inherit under the will to keep them from challenging the will. Again, I can only comment on Louisiana and speculate about other state law. In Louisiana, our case law is just now being developed. The particular clause you mention -- if anyone fights, no one gets anything -- has been held to be invalid here in Louisiana. Just because X challenges it, doesn't mean Y and Z should be left out in the cold. I understand case law here to say that you could say if X challenges it, X is out and his portion goes to Y. In other states, the case law or even codified law may be much better developed and clear. In Louisiana, it just isn't.

re: I have a question about estate planning and what is possible....(Posted by lsu480 on 11/21/12 at 9:52 am to rmc)

quote:I'm not sure that wills are 'read' like most TV shows depict. In Louisiana there is no requirement, as I suspect there isn't in most states.

Thank you to everyone for the replies so far! This question is actually for a plot of a book so I guess it can be embellished like on TV. The author is going to have a group of people get called to an attorney 10 years after a certain person died and be told there is a fortune waiting but they have to meet certain conditions in order to get all of the money. Is that possible IRL and if so how would the conversation go?

re: I have a question about estate planning and what is possible....(Posted by Bayou Tiger on 11/21/12 at 1:07 pm to lsu480)

My will has a clause where any beneficiary challenging the will gets nothing.

In the event of my early death (and my wife's) separate trusts will be set up for each kid. The stipulations are simple, with certain money being allowed for each kid. On third of the remainder is disbursed at 27 and the remainder at 30.

Now, the stipulations and guidance to a trustee would be interesting. I don't know how much of this must be stipulated in the will versus outside (assuming it would be legally binding). Could the will state that further instructions to the trustee would remained sealed until 10 years afterwards? I don't know.

It is a moot point in my will, which stipulates a corporate trustee of a certain asset base or greater must be used - individuals are merely named as successive trust protectors.

re: I have a question about estate planning and what is possible....(Posted by rmc on 11/21/12 at 2:40 pm to lsu480)

quote:Is that possible IRL and if so how would the conversation go?

As a practical matter? Yes, I think so. With some careful planning and a trustee who will follow your instructions to a T, I think it is plausible. And, admittedly not being an expert in Trusts, you may be able to create a trust in such a way that the beneficiaries are kept in the dark for X number of years. But I don't know it off hand. Maybe someone with more trust knowledge, from a legal standpoint, can give you more guidance in this thread. Louisiana's trust law is relatively rudimentary, similar to our in terrorem law. A state like Delaware has a much more fleshed out trust code/jurisprudence.

re: I have a question about estate planning and what is possible....(Posted by Poodlebrain on 11/23/12 at 9:51 am to rmc)

The trust instrument can contain language that gives a trustee discretion as to the distribution of trust income and assets among designated beneficiaries. The trustor can also provide the trustee separate written instructions as to how he would like that discretion exercised, but the instructions are not binding on the trustee to the best of my knowledge. The trustee must weigh the trustor's desires against his fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries. As such, most trustees would likely discuss with the beneficiaries the conditions the trustor wanted for controlling distributions from the trust.